4 ms·

Is Tech a Meritocracy?

13 points by snake117 11y ago

comrh 11y ago
Is anything a true meritocracy?
- JauntTrooper 11y ago
  Chess.
  - pbreit 11y ago
    The narrower the rules, the more merit counts. Unfortunately (actually, fortunately), in business and in the world, there are few if any rules.
pbreit 11y ago
A little bit more than most things but certainly not like what the idealists would prefer. Somehow they do not believe that high end college careers, name-brand companies or knowing lots of good people have merit.
existencebox 11y ago
This topic gets brought up and beaten to the ground on a regular basis, while the answer seems quite apparent: "No, but then again nothing is." It always struck me as rather odd that tech was seen as some exception where all of the typical powers of politicking, luck, opportunity, and networking/positioning savvy went out the window for some exalted ideal that people would only judge and succeed based on merit. There may be some draw, I'll grant, in the ability of the individual to have truly massive impact via tech as a force multiplier, but beyond that I've never been convinced as to why tech as an "industry" wouldn't pick up the modus operandi of more matured industries, anti-meritocratic practices and all, once that force multiplier is effectively harnessed, understood, and boxed into just another means for a worker to deliver productive output. All of the same management and incentive structures are relatively comparable across industries. As is my tendency, this was a bit of a rant, so in summary: There is certainly some merit based reward in tech, perhaps to a greater degree than in other industries due to the aformentioned single-dev-power. But as in all things this is heavily influenced by the opportunities one is presented and the tools one is able/willing to use. (trying to encapsulate everything from "working overtime" to "playing political games" in this) The greater question to me seems to be, "how do you unseat those with vested interest and power in maintaining the status quo, if you're playing by a set of rules that they aren't (and are starting at a disadvantage)" (if I may handwave at the recent bigCo wage/hiring collusion), or perhaps more deeply, "is it possible to have a complex societal/corporate structure without there being loopholes/social constructs that can be exploited to detract from there ever being a pure meritocracy, and do we even WANT the constrained system that would allow for this?"
- ryandvm 11y ago
  Tech is a meritocracy, it's just based on many more factors than technical skill. Idiot savants aren't particularly successful, but the sky is the limit for developers that are technically proficient and also able to navigate the murky waters of managerial politics. There aren't a whole lot of fields that allow someone with only a high school diploma to make upwards of $150K. And I'd argue that those that do are usually meritocracies too.
  - existencebox 11y ago
    At the risk of being pedantic/taking the pessimistic take, "tech is a meritocracy but..." seems entirely in line with my conclusion of "nothing is a meritocracy, although tech enables those with merit more than most" Someone with a highschool diploma CAN certainly succeed (two of my strongest mentors, one of which a googler, did not have college degrees) but they had _significant_ hurdles to get where they did; and even in my own experience I've run into (nearly verbatim): "Since you have never held a senior rank, we are not willing to look at you further" (turning down any opportunity to "prove onesself" as well). As I've said in posts elsewhere, tech is as susceptible to needing other signaling channels as any other field, even if we weight the signaling of "personal achievements" higher. If we're coming at this from different angles around the basis of whether these side effects preclude the existence of a meritocracy, I can accept that disagreement; since I do tend to take a more pessimistic take on things and could see how the opposite could be argued. (and as I said in the OP, I'm not convinced a "pure meritocracy" could even happen, so perhaps that's a vacuous comparison anyway)
    - ryandvm 11y ago
      We're definitely being pedantic, but what I'm saying is it's a meritocracy because your skills are far more important than your pedigree or seniority.
carsongross 11y ago
Yes, as much as any industry in the history of mankind, save perhaps prostitution.

13 points by snake117 11y ago

comrh 11y ago

Is anything a true meritocracy?

JauntTrooper 11y ago
Chess.
- pbreit 11y ago
  The narrower the rules, the more merit counts. Unfortunately (actually, fortunately), in business and in the world, there are few if any rules.

pbreit 11y ago

A little bit more than most things but certainly not like what the idealists would prefer. Somehow they do not believe that high end college careers, name-brand companies or knowing lots of good people have merit.

existencebox 11y ago

This topic gets brought up and beaten to the ground on a regular basis, while the answer seems quite apparent: "No, but then again nothing is." It always struck me as rather odd that tech was seen as some exception where all of the typical powers of politicking, luck, opportunity, and networking/positioning savvy went out the window for some exalted ideal that people would only judge and succeed based on merit. There may be some draw, I'll grant, in the ability of the individual to have truly massive impact via tech as a force multiplier, but beyond that I've never been convinced as to why tech as an "industry" wouldn't pick up the modus operandi of more matured industries, anti-meritocratic practices and all, once that force multiplier is effectively harnessed, understood, and boxed into just another means for a worker to deliver productive output. All of the same management and incentive structures are relatively comparable across industries. As is my tendency, this was a bit of a rant, so in summary: There is certainly some merit based reward in tech, perhaps to a greater degree than in other industries due to the aformentioned single-dev-power. But as in all things this is heavily influenced by the opportunities one is presented and the tools one is able/willing to use. (trying to encapsulate everything from "working overtime" to "playing political games" in this) The greater question to me seems to be, "how do you unseat those with vested interest and power in maintaining the status quo, if you're playing by a set of rules that they aren't (and are starting at a disadvantage)" (if I may handwave at the recent bigCo wage/hiring collusion), or perhaps more deeply, "is it possible to have a complex societal/corporate structure without there being loopholes/social constructs that can be exploited to detract from there ever being a pure meritocracy, and do we even WANT the constrained system that would allow for this?"

ryandvm 11y ago
Tech is a meritocracy, it's just based on many more factors than technical skill. Idiot savants aren't particularly successful, but the sky is the limit for developers that are technically proficient and also able to navigate the murky waters of managerial politics. There aren't a whole lot of fields that allow someone with only a high school diploma to make upwards of $150K. And I'd argue that those that do are usually meritocracies too.
- existencebox 11y ago
  At the risk of being pedantic/taking the pessimistic take, "tech is a meritocracy but..." seems entirely in line with my conclusion of "nothing is a meritocracy, although tech enables those with merit more than most" Someone with a highschool diploma CAN certainly succeed (two of my strongest mentors, one of which a googler, did not have college degrees) but they had _significant_ hurdles to get where they did; and even in my own experience I've run into (nearly verbatim): "Since you have never held a senior rank, we are not willing to look at you further" (turning down any opportunity to "prove onesself" as well). As I've said in posts elsewhere, tech is as susceptible to needing other signaling channels as any other field, even if we weight the signaling of "personal achievements" higher. If we're coming at this from different angles around the basis of whether these side effects preclude the existence of a meritocracy, I can accept that disagreement; since I do tend to take a more pessimistic take on things and could see how the opposite could be argued. (and as I said in the OP, I'm not convinced a "pure meritocracy" could even happen, so perhaps that's a vacuous comparison anyway)
  - ryandvm 11y ago
    We're definitely being pedantic, but what I'm saying is it's a meritocracy because your skills are far more important than your pedigree or seniority.

carsongross 11y ago

Yes, as much as any industry in the history of mankind, save perhaps prostitution.